Search -
A Report of Some Proceedings on the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Goal Delivery for the Trial of the Rebels in the Year 1746 in the
A Report of Some Proceedings on the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Goal Delivery for the Trial of the Rebels in the Year 1746 in the Author:Michael Foster Title: A Report of Some Proceedings on the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Goal Delivery for the Trial of the Rebels in the Year 1746 in the County of Surry General Books publication date: 2009 Original publication date: 1767 Original Publisher: Printed by Sarah Cotter Subjects: Treason Homicide Accomplices Trials Jacobite Re... more »bellion, 1745-1746 Notes: This is a black and white OCR reprint of the original. It has no illustrations and there may be typos or missing text. When you buy the General Books edition of this book you get free trial access to Million-Books.com where you can select from more than a million books for free. Excerpt: The Cafe of Alexander Kinloch and Charles Kinloch, Oflober 28. 1746. TQRESENT Lord Chief Juftice Wilhs, Mr. Juftice jT Fo/ler, and Mr. Barcn Clive. Alexander Kinloch and Charles Kinlocb, who were the firft of the Prifoners concerned in the Paper delivered the Second of September that were brought to Trial, were fet to the Bar; and they agreeing in their Challenges, One Jury was ("worn and charged with them by the Clerk of the Arraignments. The Junior Council for the Crown opened the Indictment, and the Sollicitor General in a few Words opened the Evidence. When the Council for the Crown had proceeded thus far, the Chief Juftice, before any Evidence-was given, told the Prifoner's Council, that he was informed they had fome Objection to make in behalf of their Clients grounded on the Aft of Union. Which Objection He laid was. proper to be fpoke to before the Council for the Crown went into their Evidence. Whereupon Mr. Jodre'l one of the Prifoners Council ftated his Objection and fpoke largely to it. The Chief Juftice then faid that the Ob- jeSion being in Nature of a Plea to the Jurifdiftion of the Court, could not be made on the Iffue of Not Guilty ; nor could any Evidence in fupport of the Objection be received upon that Ifiue; And therefore propofed that a Juror ihould be withdrawn ; and that the Prifoners fhould have l...« less